Atheists Are Not Moral People! Get Your Argument On!

A common comment that will be thrown at you when debating or discussing with a theist will be that "if you don't get your morality from god, where do you get your morality" or "are atheists then immoral" or something else of that flavor. There are many way to address these comments such as discussing where morals come from and the definition of morals, which can be tricky, or that morality is intrinsic in each being and you don't need god to have them or that morals preceded religion and there are plenty of examples that can go along with that last point. These can all be very effective but I heard something the other day that I felt made a lot of sense.

When asked "were you a moral person", the person, who was an atheist said, "you're right I'm not moral because morals is a set of behavioral guidelines derived from authority whether real or imagined and I don't use morality in my day to day life to make decisions, however I'm a very ethical person, and I think that social ethics as they evolved out of social dynamics, are a better course to pursue then morality, because if you're being a moral person, and you are doing what the authority has instructed you to do, that authority may not in itself be moral. So for me social ethics are the way to go."

Now I understand that by ethics are defined as moral behaviors. But the distinction is blurry to me. So I would like to hear your opinion on a) the differences between the two if there are any in your view and b) your preferred method to answer this question. How do you answer someone who comes at you with the "morality" argument?

Kyle, while I know Blaine to be perfectly capable of speaking for himself, what I think he means is not so much a "corporeal lawgiver," so much as a formal agreement, among relevant people, as to exactly what kind of behavior will, and will not be acceptable to the group concerned, whether it be a town, county, state, or country,as well as an agreement regarding the consequences of unacceptable behavior.

"a formal agreement, among relevant people"... "acceptable to the group concerned..."

But this is not how government actually works is it? Government is obligatory, not optional. In Canada, I can choose not to participate by not participating in health care but if I choose not to participate by not paying taxes, I will be sent to jail, eventually. I don't have a choice to not accept the authority of the government (on issues that matter, anyway.)

Anarchism doesn't mean people wouldn't/couldn't enter formal agreements to cooperate to provide services. The difference is these agreements would be contractual as opposed to obligatory.

Again, this isn't the place for a debate about anarchism. I am merely pointing out that what you have written here isn't actually objecting to my point.

That definition of morality and ethics will prove too faulty to get you far in an argument of this depth. Ethics are things dealing with what we have a right to do, while morality deals with the right things to do within an ethical system. You have, for instance, a right to keep your spare money from those in need, but morally that makes you a jerk.

I derive my ethical system and morality largely from the work of Murray Rothbard, though with several adjustments. It helps to fully flesh-out your ideas before trying to defend them, which is, as I've seen it anyways, is the entire point of the atheist community - to help understand your own conceptions of reality, morality, and social interaction.

You must, in other words, know thyself before you can defend yourself. And if you are an ethical and moral person, you will be able to explain why.

A friend suggested to me when I was younger that I had no ethics, I simply had aesthetics. Meaning that I find within myself a sense of how the universe "should" be and act accordingly, in the same way that a painter has a sense of how a painting "should" look and paints accordingly. I do not insist, or even expect, that others agree with me on any of that. If they disagree with my actions, others may try and stop me from doing what I feel is right. If I disagree with others' actions, then I may try and stop them from doing what I feel is wrong, if I feel it to be of sufficient importance.

I do believe in a sort of "karma" -- though not the common Western notion. Who I am is the product of my life experiences. I am also the primary *cause* of many of my life experiences, by what I think, what I say, or what I do. ("As a man thinks, so he is" or something like that.) Just as I have a sense of how the universe ought to be, so I also have a sense of how I ought to be. To a large extent, I make myself who I am by what I do/say/think. There is no grace, there is no forgiveness, there is no absolution. The more I lie, the more I become a liar. The more I steal, the more I become a thief. The more I kill, the more I become a killer. I do not wish to become a killer, or a thief, or a liar, so I avoid doing those things.

Just cite this example of Christian "morality:" Charles L. Worley, a Baptist minister in North Carolina just came out publicly with a call for all homosexuals to be executed. I know of no atheist organizations, institutions, or publications that call for killing anybody; that's what sanctimonious Jesus freaks do. Atheists revere life and living things. Christians revere only their non-existent magic man in the sky.

@Dale, I couldn't let this go. You mean some atheists revere life. Others just revere human life, yet others just lives of people they know? This is plain from this forum. The Golden Rule, for some, has many caveats that preclude many from its moral reach.